txh1b
08-18 05:31 PM
They would however have to disclose that period of out of stay when they file the GC as G325 A asks for all status history. In other words, you will get screwed.
Whoever has some approval by means of luck or fluke does not make it the law. They will take the bite when time comes. A COS is not the way to go. A visa stamp or travel and re-entry may be a better way and note that it does not erase any earlier out of stay period.
Whoever has some approval by means of luck or fluke does not make it the law. They will take the bite when time comes. A COS is not the way to go. A visa stamp or travel and re-entry may be a better way and note that it does not erase any earlier out of stay period.
wallpaper Mortal Kombat II: Music from
ns007
06-15 11:13 AM
3yr.
1yr extension rule kicks-in after 6yr.
What if H1-B extension is for last 3 years of total 6 years? It means,my first 3 years are ending in nov 07, and if I file 485, will I get 3 years of extension or 1 yr extension?
1yr extension rule kicks-in after 6yr.
What if H1-B extension is for last 3 years of total 6 years? It means,my first 3 years are ending in nov 07, and if I file 485, will I get 3 years of extension or 1 yr extension?
number30
07-26 02:12 PM
In India 3 year grad are arts, humanities, science, management and accounting.
while 4+ year degrees are for technology, engineering, agriculture, medicine.
UK (some parts of europe as well) and Australia seems to have similar system in some of its university.
even some US universities have rightly adopted the same
fsu.edu | degree in 3 (http://www.degreein3.fsu.edu/)
Degree in Three Program Description (http://www.ecu.edu/threeyeardegree/)
Panola College Degree in 3 Program (http://legacy.panola.edu/instruction/degree_3/index.html)
The point is the content is more important than the duration.
I personally think 3year UG unlikely reason for reopening I140 after GC is approved. I would be shocked if that is the case.
I am afraid this could be a paper chase. Asking more docs to creating headache for the applicant.
U.S. steps up H-1B, green card assault with paper chase (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135552/U.S._steps_up_H_1B_green_card_assault_with_paper_c hase)
It is better to consult attorney to handle it properly.
The issue not the three year degree But It is 16 year education or 15 year education to attain the degree. In UK it still takes 16 years education to attain the Bachelors.
while 4+ year degrees are for technology, engineering, agriculture, medicine.
UK (some parts of europe as well) and Australia seems to have similar system in some of its university.
even some US universities have rightly adopted the same
fsu.edu | degree in 3 (http://www.degreein3.fsu.edu/)
Degree in Three Program Description (http://www.ecu.edu/threeyeardegree/)
Panola College Degree in 3 Program (http://legacy.panola.edu/instruction/degree_3/index.html)
The point is the content is more important than the duration.
I personally think 3year UG unlikely reason for reopening I140 after GC is approved. I would be shocked if that is the case.
I am afraid this could be a paper chase. Asking more docs to creating headache for the applicant.
U.S. steps up H-1B, green card assault with paper chase (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135552/U.S._steps_up_H_1B_green_card_assault_with_paper_c hase)
It is better to consult attorney to handle it properly.
The issue not the three year degree But It is 16 year education or 15 year education to attain the degree. In UK it still takes 16 years education to attain the Bachelors.
2011 Steve Jobs#39; Mortal Kombat
sush
10-03 06:46 PM
The latest one I see is 07/28/2007
more...
swamy
04-22 09:28 PM
why ban- let bigots have their say too & demean themselves in full view (what kind of degenerate would use terms like 'anchor babies')
cooler
07-01 01:29 PM
My friend joined new company from Project Manager he got a job on Associate Director. When GC was filed he was developer :-)
You can do anything as long as you don't get caught. In this case. If he moved from a developer to a PM. That in itself is a significant change in job description.
I have heard one of the lawyers say that a developer to a PM is a natural job progression. That does not make sense at all. You go from debugging your code to debugging MS-Project. The associate Director post involves something entirely different.
IF the company is willing to go along and provide the letter with the same designation as in LC, then there is nothing to worry else you would have a sword hanging till the case is adjucated.
You can do anything as long as you don't get caught. In this case. If he moved from a developer to a PM. That in itself is a significant change in job description.
I have heard one of the lawyers say that a developer to a PM is a natural job progression. That does not make sense at all. You go from debugging your code to debugging MS-Project. The associate Director post involves something entirely different.
IF the company is willing to go along and provide the letter with the same designation as in LC, then there is nothing to worry else you would have a sword hanging till the case is adjucated.
more...
bb20078
10-10 09:20 AM
I also want to know the answer to this question
Can you re enter USA on H4 after using EAD
On the immigration form at the port of entry, can you put H4 and say YES to do you work?
Can you re enter USA on H4 after using EAD
On the immigration form at the port of entry, can you put H4 and say YES to do you work?
2010 REVIEW: Mortal Kombat (1995)
Gravitation
10-23 10:30 AM
One common misconception is that there's a "quota" for each country. There's none.
The number 2600 is actually the upper limit. It means that no one country should get more visa numbers than 2600.
The total number of EB3 visa numbers for the whole world is 40,000. There's no entitlement here. There's no guarantee of all visa numbers being issued. There's no minimum number of visas that a specific country is sure to get...
If there's a demand for more than 2600 for a specific country, it's said to be oversubscribed. If the total demand from all countries remains below 40,000, the remaining visa numbers may overflow to the oversubscribed countries.
Once again, it's perfectly within the law to issue less than 40,000 visa numbers. It's a limit, not a quota.
The number 2600 is actually the upper limit. It means that no one country should get more visa numbers than 2600.
The total number of EB3 visa numbers for the whole world is 40,000. There's no entitlement here. There's no guarantee of all visa numbers being issued. There's no minimum number of visas that a specific country is sure to get...
If there's a demand for more than 2600 for a specific country, it's said to be oversubscribed. If the total demand from all countries remains below 40,000, the remaining visa numbers may overflow to the oversubscribed countries.
Once again, it's perfectly within the law to issue less than 40,000 visa numbers. It's a limit, not a quota.
more...
Rb_newsletter
01-22 05:49 PM
There should be a way to appeal. Talk to your employer and attorney and get their advice. Until you get the paper/reason for denial, you may not get solid advice. But in the mean while, get all the documents ready, like pay stubs, tax docs, client letter, contract docs, etc... That way you will have all needed docs in hand and can appeal the denial as soon as you get the denial reason.
Are you working full-time or consulting? If it is consulting, then may the latest employer-employee relationship memo played its role.
Key is stay calm and consider every possible way. Your fellow IV-ians here can feel the pain that you go through. We wish your issue gets resolved quickly.
Are you working full-time or consulting? If it is consulting, then may the latest employer-employee relationship memo played its role.
Key is stay calm and consider every possible way. Your fellow IV-ians here can feel the pain that you go through. We wish your issue gets resolved quickly.
hair quot;Mortal Kombat vs.
sachug22
12-10 02:31 PM
deleted
more...
when
02-29 10:23 AM
The online status shows a date Sept, but my app was received in July. Is that normal?
hot Mortal Kombat is back,
GCD
07-27 09:21 PM
Me, Wife and I signed for Daughter on all applications(485(3)/EAD(2)/AP(3))
We also sent signed G28 for everybody for every application( 8 total)
It doesn't hurt to be over cautious.
I hope we are fine.
We also sent signed G28 for everybody for every application( 8 total)
It doesn't hurt to be over cautious.
I hope we are fine.
more...
house File:Mortal Kombat poster.jpg
nixstor
08-24 11:29 AM
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=222935
I understand the plight, but you aint alone bro.. 360K people are along with you. Dont look for shortcuts (in case if both the posts are by one person ) and get what you deserve. Do what you can to educate your friends and contribute.
I understand the plight, but you aint alone bro.. 360K people are along with you. Dont look for shortcuts (in case if both the posts are by one person ) and get what you deserve. Do what you can to educate your friends and contribute.
tattoo Mortal Kombat
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
pictures WB announces Mortal Kombat
basav
08-03 03:20 PM
I came to US in March 2007 on L1B, mean time applied for H1b during April 2008 which got approved with COS effective from Oct 1 2008,
I could not work on H1b for some reasons, continued work on L1 until end of may 09 , went back to india during last week of May 2009 and returned in a month time (last week of June 09) with same L1 visa,
Now I have a valid I94 fo L1 until Feb 2010, also H1B I94 says valid until 2011 which I assume is no more valid due to re-entry on L1 n offcourse never having worked on H1b till date.
Now I would like to take up H1B in a month time, following are my questions
1. I assume that my employer need to apply for COS from L1-H1 now (form I-539) correct me if iam wrong,also is it legal to work while COS approval is in progress?
2. Is there a premium processing for COS? to make sure I get approval first and then start working,how long does it take to process premium and what is the typical time frame for normal one?
3. My family is back in India, are they legal to travel during my COS being in progress with necessary stamping ? This is in case iam legal to work while COS is in progress, or
you recommend me getting them before COS is initiated with there L2 visa n then apply COS for them too ? Risk here is if COS is not approved for some reasons everyone have to leave !
I could not work on H1b for some reasons, continued work on L1 until end of may 09 , went back to india during last week of May 2009 and returned in a month time (last week of June 09) with same L1 visa,
Now I have a valid I94 fo L1 until Feb 2010, also H1B I94 says valid until 2011 which I assume is no more valid due to re-entry on L1 n offcourse never having worked on H1b till date.
Now I would like to take up H1B in a month time, following are my questions
1. I assume that my employer need to apply for COS from L1-H1 now (form I-539) correct me if iam wrong,also is it legal to work while COS approval is in progress?
2. Is there a premium processing for COS? to make sure I get approval first and then start working,how long does it take to process premium and what is the typical time frame for normal one?
3. My family is back in India, are they legal to travel during my COS being in progress with necessary stamping ? This is in case iam legal to work while COS is in progress, or
you recommend me getting them before COS is initiated with there L2 visa n then apply COS for them too ? Risk here is if COS is not approved for some reasons everyone have to leave !
dresses mortal kombat logo
gchope07
07-20 03:17 PM
Hi,
My lawyer used a G325-A which was not downloaded from the USCIS website but was a physical form which had 4 pages of the same form in different colors(I think blue,green,yellow and pink).
I filled the first one and it automatically carbon copied it to the other 3.
Has anybody used such a form? and it is o.k to sign the first one and have the other 3 with carbon copy signatures?
Let me know if this is o.k
My lawyer used a G325-A which was not downloaded from the USCIS website but was a physical form which had 4 pages of the same form in different colors(I think blue,green,yellow and pink).
I filled the first one and it automatically carbon copied it to the other 3.
Has anybody used such a form? and it is o.k to sign the first one and have the other 3 with carbon copy signatures?
Let me know if this is o.k
more...
makeup XBox 360: Mortal Kombat
go_guy123
01-07 10:32 PM
People who have been paying taxes for 6-10+ years and working in the US economy get only 50,000 Green cards a year, while 50,000 complete strangers in a foreign country get Green card in a year because they happen to be lucky and win a lottery !! :confused:
It doesnt matter who is paying taxes or not. The immigration lobby is all about vote bank
and non-skilled immigration has the upper hand over skilled ones. The senate is still under democratic party and they will roadblock any immigration bill for skilled unless there is something for the "illegals" (more likely theey will try to attach Dream act)
It doesnt matter who is paying taxes or not. The immigration lobby is all about vote bank
and non-skilled immigration has the upper hand over skilled ones. The senate is still under democratic party and they will roadblock any immigration bill for skilled unless there is something for the "illegals" (more likely theey will try to attach Dream act)
girlfriend Mortal Kombat - Television
iamlost
07-24 10:37 PM
HI,
Don't panic. USCIS rarely reopens an approved GC (only in cases of fraud or misrepresentation). If you are talking about the online status, I would not pay too much attention to it as it gives incorrect info sometimes.
If you or your company did actually receive a RFE in the snail mail, get in touch with a good attorney and contact USCIS to see what is going on.
Alternatively, you can contact USCIS customer service yourself, to put your mind at ease.
Good luck.
I am wondering if this has anything to do with the erroneous 140 approvals from TSC. So, they revised all the approvals to pending status ... and my 2.5 old approved case also got in midst of it ... Hmmm !!! This is killing man .... No peace even after GC !
TSC Erroneously Issues I-140 Approval eMails on Premium Processing Cases
�MurthyDotCom
The Texas Service Center (TSC) advised in late July 2009 that eMail notifications have incorrectly been sent, which indicate approvals of Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (I-140) cases. These eMails are originating from the Premium Processing Unit due to a technical problem. The system is issuing these eMails in error shortly after the transmission of the eMail receipt.
�MurthyDotCom
Erroneous I-140 Approval eMails do not have a Priority Date
�MurthyDotCom
The erroneous eMail does not contain a priority date or EB classification for the case. TSC is working to address the technical problem. Employers who are unsure about any such communication received from the TSC Premium Processing Unit can contact that unit at the eMail address or phone number provided on the I-140 receipt notice.
�MurthyDotCom
Conclusion
�MurthyDotCom
This likely is annoying and frustrating to individuals who believed their I-140 approvals were received in record time, only to find out that the approval eMail notification was erroneous. Although not specifically stated in the information released by TSC, it appears that this problem has been limited to eMail notifications. There was no indication that any hard-copy approval notices have been issued in error. MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers will be advised of any further information on this topic, when it is made available.
Don't panic. USCIS rarely reopens an approved GC (only in cases of fraud or misrepresentation). If you are talking about the online status, I would not pay too much attention to it as it gives incorrect info sometimes.
If you or your company did actually receive a RFE in the snail mail, get in touch with a good attorney and contact USCIS to see what is going on.
Alternatively, you can contact USCIS customer service yourself, to put your mind at ease.
Good luck.
I am wondering if this has anything to do with the erroneous 140 approvals from TSC. So, they revised all the approvals to pending status ... and my 2.5 old approved case also got in midst of it ... Hmmm !!! This is killing man .... No peace even after GC !
TSC Erroneously Issues I-140 Approval eMails on Premium Processing Cases
�MurthyDotCom
The Texas Service Center (TSC) advised in late July 2009 that eMail notifications have incorrectly been sent, which indicate approvals of Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (I-140) cases. These eMails are originating from the Premium Processing Unit due to a technical problem. The system is issuing these eMails in error shortly after the transmission of the eMail receipt.
�MurthyDotCom
Erroneous I-140 Approval eMails do not have a Priority Date
�MurthyDotCom
The erroneous eMail does not contain a priority date or EB classification for the case. TSC is working to address the technical problem. Employers who are unsure about any such communication received from the TSC Premium Processing Unit can contact that unit at the eMail address or phone number provided on the I-140 receipt notice.
�MurthyDotCom
Conclusion
�MurthyDotCom
This likely is annoying and frustrating to individuals who believed their I-140 approvals were received in record time, only to find out that the approval eMail notification was erroneous. Although not specifically stated in the information released by TSC, it appears that this problem has been limited to eMail notifications. There was no indication that any hard-copy approval notices have been issued in error. MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers will be advised of any further information on this topic, when it is made available.
hairstyles MORTAL KOMBAT DESTINY (PART 9,
lecter
December 8th, 2003, 02:29 AM
i don't normally go for tricked-up stuff, but this one kind of hooked me. I did the "Ansel Adams" conversion to B&W which gave me a contrasty and "antique' look. Then I merged it with the original at about 45%.
This gave the shot a very surreal look.
Don
Sure is surreal... I'm with Steve, where does one get the plug-in?? (Perhaps I didn't read enough...)
This gave the shot a very surreal look.
Don
Sure is surreal... I'm with Steve, where does one get the plug-in?? (Perhaps I didn't read enough...)